The dispute over the Bush Administration's refusal to declassify a
28 page section of the congressional joint inquiry report on the
September 11 terrorist attacks has elevated classification policy
to front page news.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) directly challenged the legitimacy of
the continued classification. "This obsession with excessive
secrecy is deeply troubling," he said July 24:

Some may devalue such comments because Sen. Graham is a candidate
for the Democratic presidential nomination, and a critic of
President Bush.

But the same cannot be said of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who is a
Republican supporter of the President and a "hawk" on protecting
classified information. Yet it was Shelby who said on NBC Meet
the Press and elsewhere that "My judgment is 95 percent of that
information could be declassified, become uncensored so the
American people would know."

"Judgment" may be the key word here. What the dispute over the
missing 28 pages illustrates with exceptional clarity is that
classification is a subjective process. Different individuals
with comparable expertise and commitment to national security will
sometimes assess the sensitivity of particular information in
different, even opposing ways.

Because it is subjective, the classification process is susceptible
to bias, poor judgment or error.

While this is obvious enough, it is also hard to admit. Asked
about Sen. Shelby's contrasting view on July 29, President Bush
simply ignored the question. Grilled at a White House press
briefing, spokesman Scott McClellan could only repeat the
Administration position over and over. See:

If the classification process is susceptible to error, then what is
needed, and what is lacking, is an effective error correction
mechanism.

Ironically, the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11 specifically
called for "amendments to the Executive Orders, policies and
procedures that govern the national security classification of
intelligence information, in an effort to expand access to
relevant information..." (recommendation 15).

But the joint inquiry assigned this crucial task to the President!
Since it is unrealistic to ask a President, especially this
President, to limit his own authority to classify, this
recommendation is a futile gesture.

Sen. Bob Graham said he would ask the Senate Intelligence Committee
to exercise its own authority to disclose portions of the 28
classified pages, pursuant to a Senate procedure that has never
before been utilized. This would precipitate an extraordinary
(and thrilling) confrontation between the executive and
legislative branches over classification policy.

See that procedure in Section 8(a) of the Rules of the Select
Committee on Intelligence here:

The classified 28 pages are understood to refer to Saudi Arabia and
the possible role of Saudi officials in aiding the 9/11 hijackers.

"We cannot name this country," said comedian Bill Maher, "but it
is, we can assume, a veritable *Mecca* of terrorist activity."

"We have nothing to hide," said Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud
al-Faisal after meeting with President Bush. "And we do not seek
nor do we need to be shielded. We believe that releasing the
missing 28 pages will allow us to respond to any allegations in a
clear and credible manner; and remove any doubts about the
Kingdom's true role in the war against terrorism and its
commitment to fight it." See:

President Bush issued an executive order on July 29 to implement a
provision of the Homeland Security Act that is supposed to promote
increased sharing of homeland security information throughout the
government, including with state and local officials. See
Executive Order 13311 here:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced a bill on July 29 to shed light on
the government's use of commercial databases containing personal
information for intelligence and law enforcement purposes.

"The power of technology that allows the Federal Government to pry
into the personal lives of millions of Americans is only beginning
to be understood," said Sen. Wyden. "It is a breath-taking
power."

His bill would require a thorough report on government acquisition
and use of such databases, and would prohibit the use of funds to
procure commercial database information until the report is
provided to Congress.

See the introduction of the "Citizens' Protection in Federal
Databases Act" (S. 1484) here:

Secrecy News (7/24/03) mistakenly said that declassified excerpts
of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate were not
published by the major media outlets following a June 18 White
House background briefing where the excerpts were disclosed. In
fact, the Washington Post promptly published the release on its
web site.

Secrecy News (7/28/03) stated that the Senate voted along party
lines to defeat an amendment that would have subjected advisory
committees of the Department of Homeland Security to open meeting
laws. But there were two exceptions: Republicans Olympia Snowe
(ME) and Lincoln Chafee (RI) voted with the Democrats in favor of
open meetings.

******************************

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send an email message to [email protected] with "subscribe" (without quotes) in the body of the message.